Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Net Neutrality enforcement that actually deters
In my opening speech at F2C: Freedom to Connect, I said that since the economic benefits of violating Network Neutrality are so high, that we must have rules with penalties that are strong enough to deter and effectively punish violations. Susan Crawford, independently, comes up with the same idea . . . in graphic detail! She writes:
. . . let's create a Draconian set of escalating remedies (injunctions, escalating damages, structural separation mandates) and write them down in careful detail. Let's say that unless the network providers show over the next two years that they are not, in fact, illegitimately shaping network management in order to favor their own business plans, these remedies will be put in place -- two years from now. This delayed-action regulation might be easier to push through, and might just make the providers toe the line. If they do, we'll all be rewarded by solidified consumer expectations of an unfettered, blazing-fast internet for everyone.Indeed!!! Somebody should propose this as an amendment to the current COPA bill!
Technorati Tags: F2C, NetworkNeutrality, SusanCrawford
Comments:
The threat of hundreds or thousands or even millions of customers leaving an ISP for providing inferior service won't be enough to get these companies to 'toe the line'? We don't need government to tell us that interfering with Internet usage is a horrible business strategy...the consumer will do it first.
Dear Paulaner01,
I wish it would be so simple. If so, we would only need three or four or five competitors. This would be better than it is now, where we have between zero and two competitors in about 99% of households. (And remember, Chairman Powell said that magical things start to happen when we get to three.)
But it is worse than that! In the cell phone world there are at least three to choose from, yet NONE OF THEM offer open plaforms. ALL OF THEM are walled gardens. You'd think the magic of the marketplace would have worked. Or maybe open platforms don't offer consumer benefits (and pigs fly).
Barbara van Schiewick wrote a magnificent thesis under Lessig where she pointed out that even under very competitive conditions the costs to switch carriers are high, so a network neutrality rule is STILL desirable, even with many competitors.
Post a Comment
I wish it would be so simple. If so, we would only need three or four or five competitors. This would be better than it is now, where we have between zero and two competitors in about 99% of households. (And remember, Chairman Powell said that magical things start to happen when we get to three.)
But it is worse than that! In the cell phone world there are at least three to choose from, yet NONE OF THEM offer open plaforms. ALL OF THEM are walled gardens. You'd think the magic of the marketplace would have worked. Or maybe open platforms don't offer consumer benefits (and pigs fly).
Barbara van Schiewick wrote a magnificent thesis under Lessig where she pointed out that even under very competitive conditions the costs to switch carriers are high, so a network neutrality rule is STILL desirable, even with many competitors.
